Could Lactantius have thus written, in a book designed for the perusal of heathens, if they had the opportunity of turning round upon him and saying, Do not your own people fall down before images every day? Would any Romanist write thus now? And now for " Satisfaction to God by penitential works." There is no subject on which a superficial reader is more certain to mistake. Such a mind might equally deduce from Scripture and the Fathers, the Popish or the Antinomian doctrine, according as it was conversant with a peculiar class of passages. The reader of more enlarged study would readily perceive the distinction between a satisfaction inherently meritorious, and a satisfaction indispensable, but not meritorious. The satisfaction of Christ's sacrifice is of the former kind—perfect, and infinite-excluding every other in a meritorious sense. Yet, to be made partakers of that satisfaction, it is required of us that we repent of past sins, and, so far as possible, redress the effects of them; which may be termed "making satisfaction," although altogether in a different sense from the other. Thus Zaccheus made satisfaction by restitution of ill-gotten gains; but this was not a meritorious satisfaction; salvation came to his house because he was a child of Abraham --but none are children of Abraham but by faith in the satisfaction which is really meritorious.* Those who apostatized in the time of the Decian persecution were not to be readmitted into the Church till they had "made satisfaction," that is to say, until their conduct had given satisfactory evidence of the reality of their repentance. This is what Cyprian means in the passages cited by the Irish Gentleman, with an allusion to Dan. iv. 27., which, as our author's knowledge of the Scriptures is, confessedly," scanty," he has not perceived. He further tells us that "the much misrepresented doctrine of the Catholics on this point" is that which Bossuet thus explains in answer to M. Jurieu. "Il faut, dit-il (Saint Cyprien), satisfaire à Dieu pour ses péchés; mais il faut aussi que la satisfaction soit reçue par notre Seigneur. Il faut croire tout ce que qu'on fait n'a rien de parfait ni de suffisant en soi-même; puisqu'après tout, quoique nous fassions, nous ne sommes que de serviteurs inutiles, et que nous n'avons pas même à nous glorifier du peu que nous faisons, puisque, comme nous l'avons déjà rapporté, tout nous vient de Dieu par Jésus Christ, en qui seul nous avons accès auprès du Père."-Vol. I. p. 54, note. If this be the "doctrine of the Catholics," it has been indeed misrepresented; not by Protestants, but by Popes and Councils, whom Protestants have erroneously thought the authentic expositors of the Romish faith. The Irish Gentleman's " ignorance on all matters of religion" has, more than once, impeded his arguments. Had he known any thing of the faith of the Church of England, he might have spared himself much trouble, and his readers some fatigue. He often pleads for what he deems Popish observances, without being at all aware that neither their antiquity nor expediency has been denied by Protestants, who have themselves employed them. Thus Penance is defended as a Popish ordinance, although it is well known that it is both held and practised in our reformed Church of England. It is true that its sacramental character is denied by us; and it would require more ingenuity (may we whisper, learning, also?) than the Irish Gentleman possesses, to prove that. But, it may be urged, has not penance become almost a nullity in the Church of England? In some respects it has; and we will tell the Irish Traveller why. "In the Primitive Church there was a godly discipline, that, at the beginning of Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notorious sin were put to open penance, and punished in this world, that their souls might be saved in the day of the Lord; and that others, admonished by their example, might be the more afraid to offend.”* Such a discipline was excellent, useful, and one to which no exception could be taken. It was incapable of abuse to interested, selfish, or superstitious purposes; inasmuch as the sin was to be "notorious," the offender " convicted," and the penance "open." But when the Romish Church substituted, for this rational and useful system, penances for sins which were not " notorious," sins of which none had cognizance but one individual-the confessor; sins, of which there was no "conviction;" penances which were not " open," and which therefore could not be examples; when this altered system was itself debased to the most impure and mercenary purposes; such a disgust was created to the very name of penance, that in this country, the Church has never been able to recover that rational and sober exercise of authority which she enjoyed in primitive times. At the same time she declares that such an exercise is so far from repugnant to her principles, that it "is much to be wished." The truth is, that the salutary use of penance has been destroyed by Popery. The Irish Gentleman, therefore, might have saved himself the removal of sundry lumbering folios (always supposing Kirk and Berington have not done his work) by simply consulting the Commination Service of the United Church. In a strain precisely similar, but very feebly, does the Irish Gentleman contend for auricular confession, as at once primitive and Popish. The Church of England no where prohibits confession to the priest—in the Visitation Service she recommends it—and it is evident, as a matter of reason, that it must greatly facilitate the labours of the minister; as we can, of course, best prescribe the cure where we know the disease. But it is compulsory auricular confession which is objected by us to the * Commination Service. † Ibid. VOL. XVI. NO. IX. 3 z Church of Rome. It might as well be said that, when we contend against the compulsory celibacy of the Clergy, we hold it unlawful for a clergyman to be a bachelor, as that, when we oppose the Romish system of forcing every individual to confess to the priest every thought of his heart, we interdict confession to the minister of religion. We have no scripture authority for any such ordinance; "Confess your faults one to another," ‚”* is a reciprocal duty. And when we recollect the horrid consequences of compulsory confessions—the mass of abomination they comprise-the mighty engine the usage has become in the hands of an artful and designing priesthood, we regard it with unqualified abhorrence. We would advise the youthful champion to try his pen on the defence of COMPULSORY auricular confession. Perhaps, save only the priesthood of his communion, no person is better acquainted with the details of the confessional. This is all that This is the amount of this new apology of Popery. the Irish Gentleman can say against the Church of England for shaking herself from the dust of superstition, and apparelling herself in the beautiful garments" of Scripture truth: for his attack on Calvinism applies not to us. Calvinism may be safely surrendered to its fate. If the cause of Protestantism rested on such pillars as irrespective election and reprobation, even the Irish Gentleman might tip her over with his little finger. But such is not the case. The Protestant cause rests upon the Bible; and though men may build “ wood, hay, stubble" upon that, this is no prejudice to the foundation. The early Fathers, we profess rather than concede, do not lead us to suspect that any opinions similar to those entertained by Calvin on predestination were current in the Christian Church. We thankfully receive the negative testimony which this "expressive silence" affords to the truth of more enlarged views of the Divine love; and the positive attestation to the prevalence of opposite tenets which we find scattered through their works. While we hold that neither the silence nor the explicit testimony of the Fathers could in any degree affect a doctrine plainly revealed in Scripture, yet we cannot but feel the weight of both, when they bear together on a point of controverted doctrine. But from whom did Calvin himself derive his theory? From one of the Irish Gentleman's own witnesses-one of those witnesses whom he would exalt above the Evangelists and Apostles themselves-from ST. Augustin!+ Calvin did but drink at the same brook with this thirsty religious Traveller! Both left the pure springs of Scripture, though with different views; and, lo! here they are met. * James v. 16. + See Instt. Christt. Lib. III. cap. xxii. et xxiii., where St. Augustin is often appealed to in confirmation of the "horrible decree." We shall entreat the patience of our readers for one more article on this subject, in which we shall pursue the Irish Gentleman's censures on the Reformation, and on the study of the Bible. With all his inconsistencies, he is consistent enough in this. From the beginning to the end of his work the Holy Scriptures are the constant theme of his abuse. We may now observe that this very imperfect advocate of Popery has said nothing in favour of the compulsory celibacy of the Clergy, prayers in an unknown tongue, indulgences, meritorious pilgrimages, modern miracles, infallibility, &c. &c. These would make a very pretty supplementary volume; and we would further recommend him to enlighten this luminous age by a few observations on the poetical (though not always metrical, grammatical, or orthographical) spells or charms against the cramp, tooth-ache, ear-ache, &c. sold by the enlightened "Catholic Clergy" of Ireland to their poor hoodwinked votaries.* When a gipsey does the like in England, we send him to the House of Correction as a rogue and a vagabond. Such law, however, does not apply to these reverend cunning-men; and their advocate cannot do better than explain upon what ground the distinction ought to be made. ART. II.-1. A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Lewes, at the Primary Visitation of EDWARD, Lord Bishop of Chichester, in May 1834. Published at the Request of the Clergy. London: T. Cadell. 1834. Pp. 35. 2. A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Ely, at a Visitation held in the Parish Church of St. Michael's, Cambridge, on Tuesday, April 29, 1834, by the Rev. J. H. BROWNE, M. A. Archdeacon of Ely. Published at the Request of the Clergy. London: J. Hatchard and Son. Cambridge: Deighton. Nottingham: Staveley, Dearden, and Hicklin. 1834. Pp. 58. EPISCOPAL and archidiaconal charges have now a very peculiar, but painful, interest. In other times, the superior pastor had nothing to do but to impress on the subordinate clergy a diligent attention to the The form of blessing the cramp-rings may be found in Burnet, Book Il. Art. 25. The following charm against the tooth-ache was given by a Priest in the county of Cork to one of his flock in the year 1824: "As Peter sot on a marble stone, Christ came to him, he being a Lone, The tooth ake my Lord God, Peter arise and you shall be free. And all men and women shall be free from the tooth ake, who believe in these words; I do in the name of God." See Quarterly Theological Review for March, 1825. It is difficult here to adjust the balance between fraudulence and impiety. duties appointed to them within their several folds. The interest inspired by such exhortations was deep, solemn, and affecting; but it was local and professional; the world was little concerned in the publication of the charge. We owe it to those emphatically religious men, the Dissenters, that charges no longer possess this very limited interest. They have compelled the Church to a militant position; and the priests of the Lord, with sounding trumpets, to cry alarm against them. Charges to the Clergy have now begun to be exhortations to the christian soldier to address himself to the approaching conflict; and therefore are eagerly sought after by all: while a holy jealousy pervades the ranks, which scrutinizes every expression which falls from those in command, lest cowardice, or vacillation, or treachery should seem, in the most distant degree, to appear. Archdeacon Browne's Charge will thoroughly bear this scrutiny. Nor do we say that there is any disposition in Bishop Maltby to betray his trust to the foe. He marks his ground with satisfactory precision; with a precision which, we think, sufficiently distinguishes his views from those of the wretched party, to which the conduct of public affairs is now entrusted. Yet, as might be expected, he would make concessions which we would resist with all our might. To a general registration neither he nor we would object, provided it involved no doctrine; to a modification of the ceremonial of marriage he would cautiously consent; to the absurd demand of burial in our churchyards with sectarian ceremonies, he would oppose an unqualified resistance; but he would allow the church bell to be tolled at the funerals of Dissenters, though buried in their own place of interment and according to their own rites; and why? because "it might dispose them to acquiesce more cheerfully in the exclusion, of which they now complain, from our parochial cemeteries." We did not give Bishop Maltby credit for quite so much primitive simplicity. Could he really believe that the Dissenters had any such vehement predilection for "consecrated ground," the perpetual object of their coarse and ignorant scurrilities?—or that so enlightened a body as the Dissenters, a body so utterly unshackled by antiquated and vulgar prejudices, could be soothed into acquiescence by the tinkling of a bell? or that men so entirely opposed to the superstitions and mummeries of the Church would find a welcome dirge to the memory of a departed brother in the voice of the church tower? No! the Dissenter knows that, when his minister stands in the churchyard, he does as truly invade the office of the Clergyman as if he stood in the Church; he has therefore made one step to a share of the ecclesiastical spoil. Let the good Bishop try to purchase the "cheerful acquiescence" of a hungry mastiff in "exclusion" from a feast, by * 2 Chron. xiii. 12. |